Tuesday, August 19, 2014

The season is over. It’s all behind them. (team shot pissing on monument)

I was recently branded all manner of moron — and, worse, a Mets fan – for putting postmortems on the pinstripes.

We New Yorkers fancy ourselves as the most educated and sophisticated sports devotees in the union. But in truth we’re just as provincial and petty as any other faction of flyover country.

WFAN host Mike Francesa dissected his beloved Bombers on Monday. And he made the reasonable assertion that the Yankees, at 63-59, need to go 25-15 in their final 40 games in order to make a hearty march toward the playoffs.

Which is why the season is over.

Let’s understand this. The Yankees are a .516 team after 120 games, yet we’re supposed to believe they will miraculously morph into a .600 club over the final six weeks? And they’re supposed to do it with an amalgam of castaways, castoffs and recycled parts?

...Where are the Yankees headed? Not that he has anything left in his brittle bat and creaky limbs, but Derek Jeter is taking the last link to the dynasty, to the time when we thought the good times were eternal. Who will replace No. 2?

His backup, Brendan Ryan, is batting .222 with 0 homers and 6 RBIs. Second base? Stephen Drew isn’t exactly Robinson Cano. Right field? Martin Prado is nothing more than a nice player, and Ichiro — who is a first-ballot baseball God — is 40 and is batting .277 with 14 RBIs. Their savior behind the plate, McCann (you know him as McCan’t), is mashing — .235 BA with 13 homers, 49 RBIs and a .291 OBP. For that they forked over nearly $100 million.

Well, at least we know the answer at third, The hybrid hitter/fielder and legend, the panacea for the plagued roster is…

A-Rod.

More like Pay-Rod. His guaranteed contract, still intact despite all his efforts to void his bedrock deal, is the sole reason that Hal Steinbrenner is welcoming him back. So we hang our tattered hopes on lucky No. 13 and hit our knees for Pray-Rod to play again, even at half-mast.

Considering their biblical fall from grace, it will take prayer, a religion or a religious experience to believe in the Bronx Bombers again.

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

The Yankees' odds of making the postseason are very small, yet still higher than this article puts them at.

I don't understand why people write these articles or say such things (Ray, 2011). Nobody's going to think you're smart for saying that a team with a minuscule chance to make the playoffs has no chance to make the playoffs, but if they somehow make the playoffs you're a moron. It's all downside.

Let’s understand this. The Yankees are a .516 team after 120 games, yet we’re supposed to believe they will miraculously morph into a .600 club over the final six weeks?

This is silly. A .516 team can be expected to go 21-19 over 40 games. The Yankees supposedly need to go 25-15 over that stretch to be in playoff contention. Would it really be miraculous for a team to pick up four extra wins over six weeks? Of course not.

Wasn't there another article just posted saying that the Yankees had the toughest remaining schedule. Add to that they're an old team, which you figure means less chance of variance in performance and increased likelihood of fatigue down the stretch. Yea it could happen, but it sure doesn't seem like their record is selling them short as it would in other cases.

This is silly. A .516 team can be expected to go 21-19 over 40 games. The Yankees supposedly need to go 25-15 over that stretch to be in playoff contention. Would it really be miraculous for a team to pick up four extra wins over six weeks? Of course not.

Not that it's impossible, but their Pythagorean record is 57-65, not 63-59. And more to the point, their lineup is shot full of holes from top to bottom. The ONLY way they'd have ANY chance of making it to the postseason would be for Tanaka and Pineda to bounce back without skipping a beat. Without that, they'll be lucky to finish at .500.

a) are too dumb/lazy to make the calculation that you did
b) have too big an ego to think that they might be wrong
or
c) are cynical enough about the attention span of their readership that they don't expect people to remember and hold them to account if it goes pear-shaped

Wasn't there another article just posted saying that the Yankees had the toughest remaining schedule. Add to that they're an old team, which you figure means less chance of variance in performance and increased likelihood of fatigue down the stretch. Yea it could happen, but it sure doesn't seem like their record is selling them short as it would in other cases.

I don't think anyone here would argue that the Yankees will make the playoffs. But I think it's fair to say that they *could* make the playoffs without anyone thinking anything special happened in the last 40 games.

a) are too dumb/lazy to make the calculation that you did
b) have too big an ego to think that they might be wrongand/or
c) are cynical enough about the attention span of their readership that they don't expect people to remember and hold them to account if it goes pear-shaped

Oh good, we get another round of doom and gloom from Yankees fans because their team (which is, of course, decidedly mediocre) insists on hanging around the playoff hunt.

The subtext is 'we're too noble to waste our time rooting for a team who can't blow everyone away.' Shut up 1000 times, shut up.

As a Mariners fan, I am enthusiastic to have my team playing meaningful baseball at the end of August and look forward to watching them struggle to the end, even though there are massive holes in the lineup. Even though a lot of supposed good ideas have utterly failed to pan out. Even though it's occasionally depressing to watch them throw away games.

Not that it's impossible, but their Pythagorean record is 57-65, not 63-59. And more to the point, their lineup is shot full of holes from top to bottom. The ONLY way they'd have ANY chance of making it to the postseason would be for Tanaka and Pineda to bounce back without skipping a beat. Without that, they'll be lucky to finish at .500.

The lineup isn't doing ####, but they *could* have a good month and a half and put up some runs. There *is* some talent there, just not the production so far.

This is just a casual observation and may be untrue, but Ichiro sure seemed to tank the instant he started playing every day. It seemed like pure age/fatigue. When he was platooning, he kept that average up for a long time. I wonder if he will bounce back now that they have Prado.

Yet oddly you have access to the internet and can post here. Are they no longer putting MLB standings on the internet?

So this is a post of semantics.
Sure they "could" make the playoffs, however it is somewhat remote; yet the possibility of success is there, but still slim coupled with the notion of a run that is not an outlier yet unlikely due to age, scheduling and other factors.

The Yankees have a 6% chance to make the playoffs, according to ESPN's odds. (Pause for the standard "it's over!" jokes.) You might think that's too low; maybe it's 10%, maybe 15%. But the point is that they have a very poor chance.

That said, like Tom, I don't think it would be so shocking if a .516 team went 25-15. The problem is that (a) they could just as easily go 15-25, or (b) more likely go 20-20, and (c) even if they go 25-15 they still would probably only have a 50% chance or whatever of making it in. 88 wins is close to the cutoff.

Not that it's impossible, but their Pythagorean record is 57-65, not 63-59. And more to the point, their lineup is shot full of holes from top to bottom. The ONLY way they'd have ANY chance of making it to the postseason would be for Tanaka and Pineda to bounce back without skipping a beat. Without that, they'll be lucky to finish at .500.

How in the world can you say that's the "only" way? In fact, it's probably not even a possible way. They need a bunch of players to get hot, not just two. Which may well happen. It's six weeks of ball.

Sorry Ray, that will takes as long to live down as my Pinocle parter when he once gave me a meld bid of 30 when he thought he had a double pinocle with 2 jacks of spades and 2 queens of diamonds.

My reaction to this is the same as Frasier's reaction when his Dad called him Pete Maravich at the basketball game after Niles won a chance to win the halftime shot contest:

Frasier: Thank God we switched seats, that could be me down there!
Poor Niles!
Martin: What do you mean? Every guy dreams of a chance like this!
Frasier: Dream or not, Dad, eventually he's going to try to take that
shot. You know how Niles throws!
Martin: Yeah, and you're Pete Maravich.
Frasier: <scoffing> I. Don't. Know. What that means.
Martin: Well, it means instead of criticizing him you might be a
little more supportive.

I once stayed at a prof's house for a conference (because hotels are expensive), and in the evenings he, his wife and I would play pinocle.

I'm a pretty avid card player (mostly euchre, but also poker, bridge, crib, oh ####/what's trump?, and various other trick games), but I had never played pinocle. They had to draw up a chart for me to even understand what I had in my hand.

To the best of my recollection you want to have lots of face cards, unless one of them is the queen of clubs and you have the 5 of diamonds in which case you immediately lose. Unless you have more black cards than red, then you score 5 points...conditional on you winning the hand, if you lose, you forfeit those points and have to pass your opponent your two best cards next time. Unless you have three-of-a-kind of a value lower than 6, in which case you ignore all that and instead switch to contract bridge for the next half hour.

EDIT: Though in keeping with embarrassing moments you will never live down, that other people will likely not understand...for the rest of my life my uncle is going to remind me of the time I was beating him 9-6 and let him pick up to go alone, every time I see him.

Pinocle is like a poor man's bridge. You bid for the right to call trump, based on how many points you think you will take. Points being a combination of meld (points in your hand based on certain combination of cards), and points one takes by taking aces, kings, and tens in tricks.

I'm afraid that to understand the explanation I'm going to need an explanation of bridge.

Or, as played out similarly in Frasier:

Roz: It's the Barracuda!
Martin: Who's the Barracuda?
Roz: He's a sleazy Latin lounge singer Maris is going to sleep
with to get back at Niles for kissing Mimi!
Martin: Who's Mimi?
Frasier: A horny society boozer, and the Mrs. O'Leary's Cow of our
current predicament!
Martin: Who's Mrs. O'Leary?
Frasier: A woman in Chicago who — oh, I don't have the time!

Not that it's impossible, but their Pythagorean record is 57-65, not 63-59. And more to the point, their lineup is shot full of holes from top to bottom. The ONLY way they'd have ANY chance of making it to the postseason would be for Tanaka and Pineda to bounce back without skipping a beat. Without that, they'll be lucky to finish at .500.

How in the world can you say that's the "only" way? In fact, it's probably not even a possible way. They need a bunch of players to get hot, not just two. Which may well happen. It's six weeks of ball.

Sure, and if Girardi blows hard enough, the Sun will go out. In America, anything can happen.

"Here are the starting lineups for today's game" includes the pitchers, unless every P.A. and radio/TV announcer I've ever heard in my life has been mistaken. If I'd meant "position players" I would have used that term instead. You're free to use it any way you wish.

Meanwhile, chalk up another win for the Sun, whose chosen instrument tonight was the Houston Astros. This team is like the 1949 Yankees, minus the talent. Lots of heart but not much else.

"Here are the starting lineups for today's game" includes the pitchers, unless every P.A. and radio/TV announcer I've ever heard in my life has been mistaken. If I'd meant "position players" I would have used that term instead. You're free to use it any way you wish.

So odd that one of our most literate and knowledgable members could be so wrong about this usage.

"Here are the starting lineups for today's game" includes the pitchers, unless every P.A. and radio/TV announcer I've ever heard in my life has been mistaken.

No, it includes a pitcher. And only as a fill-in, especially in the AL, where the pitcher isn't even in the lineup.

Then I guess that when another pitcher comes in, he's not part of the lineup.

But if it'll make you happy, I'll just say that their roster is shot full of holes from top to bottom, and award Pep Tech his choice of a Coke or a Pepsi.

And in the context in which you used it, "That team has a good lineup" has always meant the starting position players.

Except I didn't use those words. I originally wrote this:

Not that it's impossible, but their Pythagorean record is 57-65, not 63-59. And more to the point, their lineup is shot full of holes from top to bottom. The ONLY way they'd have ANY chance of making it to the postseason would be for Tanaka and Pineda to bounce back without skipping a beat. Without that, they'll be lucky to finish at .500.

Note that I mentioned two pitchers in the sentence immediately following my reference to "their lineup", which might have caused you to infer that I wasn't just talking about their everyday position players.

But keep on beating a dead horse. Given the state of the Yankees at this point, it'd only be fitting that you continue to do so.

Note that I mentioned two pitchers in the sentence immediately following my reference to "their lineup", which might have caused you to infer that I wasn't just talking about their everyday position players.

That might have been your intent, but using lineup if that was what you meant was simply wrong. When people refer to the lineup, they're talking about the hitting order, thus the position players (as more Primates than just Ray pointed out). Lineup strength does not include the pitching staffs, whether restricted to starters or the entire group. If you've been using it this way all these many years, you've been using it wrong. You should probably stop.

You are, however, correct about the Yankees simply not being very good. That's the biggest obstacle to their playoff hopes, as far as I can tell.

I know I'm piling on here, but, no. Lineup refers to the batting order; one could mean the 9 batters for that day ("today's lineup"), or to the regular batters the team uses ("the Orioles have a HR-hitting lineup this year"). It might refer to that day's pitcher, but only to his batting prowess (and that only in the minor leagues that haven't entered the 20th century and implemented the DH).

"Here are the starting lineups for today's game" includes the pitchers, unless every P.A. and radio/TV announcer I've ever heard in my life has been mistaken.

Just your ears. In the AL, they say "Here are the starting lineups," and then they say, "And here are today's pitchers." In the other league, they would include the pitchers, but that's because the pitcher is in the lineup.

Note that I mentioned two pitchers in the sentence immediately following my reference to "their lineup", which might have caused you to infer that I wasn't just talking about their everyday position players.

No; it would cause me to infer that you're saying "Their hitting is bad, so the only way they have any chance is if their best pitchers come back."

Note that I mentioned two pitchers in the sentence immediately following my reference to "their lineup", which might have caused you to infer that I wasn't just talking about their everyday position players.

That might have been your intent,

It was my intent.

but using lineup if that was what you meant was simply wrong. When people refer to the lineup, they're talking about the hitting order, thus the position players (as more Primates than just Ray pointed out). Lineup strength does not include the pitching staffs, whether restricted to starters or the entire group. If you've been using it this way all these many years, you've been using it wrong. You should probably stop.

When I mean to say what you and the others call "lineup", I say "everyday lineup" or "position players".

You are, however, correct about the Yankees simply not being very good. That's the biggest obstacle to their playoff hopes, as far as I can tell.

Okay, just to make everyone happy:

Their everyday lineup is shot full of more holes than supply side economics.

Their starting rotation is headed to the hospital, the minors or to Leisure World.

Their bullpen is dependent on two overworked gems, one of whom let them down last night.

In short, their entire roster is such that if they manage to straggle over the finish line at or over .500, Girardi is either Manager of the Century or Steinbrenner better hire Daniel Webster as his lawyer. They've got about as much chance of making the postseason as Jeter being the best man at Snapper's and Pope Francis's upcoming gay wedding.

There are two uses for lineup: specific and general. When someone says "this is the lineup for today's game," it means the lineup for THAT DAY, and if you're playing in an NL park, the lineup includes the pitcher. Including the day's pitcher in an AL game is simply a holdover from pre-DH days. By contrast, when someone says that a team has a "good lineup," it means the team has a good offense. No one uses "lineup" to mean the team's hitting and pitching as a whole.

They've got about as much chance of making the postseason as Jeter being the best man at Snapper's and Pope Francis's upcoming gay wedding.

Or of you remaining loyal to one of your teams when the chips are down.

It's not surprising that you equate objectivity with disloyalty.

I knew for sure it was officially over for the Yankees when you proudly announced to the entire board that you were jumping off their wagon and onto the Orioles.

I've been rooting for the Yankees since before your grandmother was discovered by anthropologists on a scavenger hunt, and still do. I've also rooted for the Orioles with the sole exception of the period when Angelos was sticking his nose into every baseball decision. And in the National League, I even root for the Nats. I'm sure you'll have a problem with that, too.

If I had you at my back in a foxhole, I would immediately wave the white flag and let myself be taken as a POW.

Joey, if 98% of the people around here had the misfortune of having you with them in a foxhole, they'd push you out and tell the diaper truck to come and take you back to your crib.

Note that I mentioned two pitchers in the sentence immediately following my reference to "their lineup", which might have caused you to infer that I wasn't just talking about their everyday position players.

But keep on beating a dead horse. Given the state of the Yankees at this point, it'd only be fitting that you continue to do so.

You know what would have killed this 'conversation' instantly? If you had just said 'oh, I meant to refer to the whole roster, not just the offense.'

It's not like people are obsessed with the proper use of the term lineup. This conversation has been about your seemingly pathological inability to simply say that you misspoke.

I've been waiting and hoping for Jolly Old...'s predictions of Yankees doom and gloom to come true for 2 seasons now. Meanwhile, they keep plodding along at an unexciting but not terrible .510-.520 pace.

I've been waiting and hoping for Jolly Old...'s predictions of Yankees doom and gloom to come true for 2 seasons now. Meanwhile, they keep plodding along at an unexciting but not terrible .510-.520 pace.

He's sort of right, though. They've been outscored by 40 runs on the year. They're carrying a lot of contracts that look problematic: McCann, Teixeira, Beltran, Sabathia... they don't have much in the way of starting pitching (Tanaka is injured, Sabathia looks cooked, and the overly optimistic hopes pinned on a guy with a shoulder issue - Pineda - is cute).

They've got a lot of work to do this offseason, but the bad contracts hamstring that. Then again, people have been predicting doom and gloom for years and they never seem to just collapse.

I've been waiting and hoping for Jolly Old...'s predictions of Yankees doom and gloom to come true for 2 seasons now. Meanwhile, they keep plodding along at an unexciting but not terrible .510-.520 pace.

Not good enough to be a serious contender, and not bad enough to be rescued by a series of high draft choices. That's today's Yankees in a nutshell.

About the only consolation this year has been a series of pleasant surprises (Solarte, Pineda, Tanaka, Betances, etc.) that with the exception of Betances, all have wound up either as pumpkins or on the DL. I'm afraid that we're simply seeing the inevitable result of a combination of revenue sharing, the luxury tax, and the increasing strategy of other hopeful contenders to lock up their best players to long contracts at a relatively young age, leaving the Yankees with long term gambles on players who may have already passed their peaks.

I've been rooting for the Yankees since before your grandmother was discovered by anthropologists on a scavenger hunt, and still do. I've also rooted for the Orioles with the sole exception of the period when Angelos was sticking his nose into every baseball decision.

So you've always (or almost always) simultaneously rooted for two teams that have been divisional arch-rivals pretty much forever.

If anyone else in the world but you but you said this, I would be pretty sure that he was yanking my chain. But I actually believe you're capable of this, because of what a complete and total nutty piece of work you are.

I've been rooting for the Yankees since before your grandmother was discovered by anthropologists on a scavenger hunt, and still do. I've also rooted for the Orioles with the sole exception of the period when Angelos was sticking his nose into every baseball decision.

So you've always, (or almost always) simultaneously rooted for two teams that have been divisional arch-rivals pretty much forever.

If anyone else in the world but you but you said this, I would be pretty sure that he was yanking my chain. But I actually believe you're capable of this, because of what a complete and total nutty piece of work you are.

I also loved both of my parents, even when they occasionally fussed and fought. I suppose that someone with your Manichean outlook on life would likewise be shocked at this.